MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807221184 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0343

Fine- and coarse-scale movements and habitat use by Wood Turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) based on probabilistic modeling of radiotelemetry and GPS-telemetry data

2018· article· en· W2807221184 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dean G. Thompson, Tom Swystun, Jane Cross, Richard Assheton Cross, Derek Chartrand, Christopher B. Edge

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsNature Conservancy of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsHabitatTelemetryEcologyBiotelemetryHome rangeScale (ratio)PopulationGlobal Positioning SystemMark and recaptureFisheryBiologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding animal movement and habitat use is critical for the delineation of habitat requiring protection for species at risk. Defining critical habitat requires studies with observations at a fine enough scale to reflect how animals use and move among habitats and include enough individuals to generalize findings to the population. We present results of a multiyear study on 48 adult Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta (Le Conte, 1830)) from two different populations monitored with low-frequency radiotelemetry and high-frequency GPS telemetry. Results demonstrated the propensity for conventional radiotelemetry to underestimate cumulative distances moved and overestimate the amount of habitat used by Wood Turtles. Together the two data sets demonstrate the propensity for Wood Turtles to remain in close proximity to the river and that some differences in habitat use occur between the sexes; males tended to move parallel to the river, whereas females moved perpendicular to the river. The GPS-telemetry data provided a robust spatiotemporal data set that provided a better understanding of frequently used habitat types and features. Overall, study results suggest that currently delineated areas of protected habitat are likely to be effective in conserving these two populations and provides significantly improved, spatially explicit knowledge that can be used to inform further mitigation efforts if necessary.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207